my design process an idea + skills + material + passion + lots of work: stuff you'll think is cool

Form + Aesthetics + Function : blah blah blah

Liu Hua, 24, from Jiangsu Province, China

The emergence of both the affordable supercomputer and 3d modeling software have empowered brilliant horny people to make some sexy forms for us all to enjoy. Academia has been at the forefront of this computer assisted/generated form movement, by spitting out legions of loyal followers trained in the art of computer assisted form creation.  Let me make it clear I have nothing against any Aesthetic/Form theory (nor against brilliant horny people).  What I think is very "curious" is the current fad of form generation and the subsequent ownership of these scripted forms by their "creators" programers... Rather than a unique human brain driven organic shape, the computer has allowed the user to interface with the complexity of form generation, which is to say facilitate the direct manipulation of the DNA that goes into the specific quadrants that make up a shape yielding a new form.  See here for what I am referring to (3 min 9 sec)...

Ok, after viewing this you might say, "Cool I never knew you could do this"... Yes, but where is the slider for making the object more comfortable to hold, better proportioned, easier to tool, at what point does it make the object better?  At what point does it function better?  Where is the better slider?  The random Better generator?  If what you are looking for is differentiation and the perfect duplication of forms from others that might exist... Yes, this is the perfect tool for that. And if you aren't tooling anything, then it doesn't matter how its tooled. Right?  Ok, now look at this video (2 min 52 sec)...

Limited to the knobs maximums, and a combination of each knob/slider turn or push, this is straight up entertainment. An idea that still needs much development, waiting to be commercialized, but is this really an art?  Are we really making something better, unique, and precious via this method?  Are we saying anything about the material we are shaping/using by being this far removed from the inherent properties of the material itself?  All good questions I have no answer to...

Scripting and massive number crunching capabilities have allowed designers to comprehend the incomprehensible, visualize and analyze forms that were previously only found in nature, being perfectly effective at what they do, just function. Replication of nature's forms or the functions they performed has been investigated by some, replicated even to the spirit of trying to give life to the forms themselves!  See this  link for an example of a designer pursuing this vein.  To what extent computers generate his forms, I'm not sure, but it seems like he sketches, builds scales, uses the computer for number crunching and visualization and then grunts out the physical labor. Ross Lovegrove is another designer in this category whom I also think is a good example.

CNC machines, laser cutters and 3d printers have facilitated designs to be cut or made out of any material and allow us a real tactile interaction with the idea in the designers head, modeled in the computer and cut out by a machine... No need to sketch: no need to build a physical model: no need of basic knowledge of how things are put together. Seemingly anybody can design a product/object and put it out to mass market... Anybody. Or am I just ignorant that it takes understanding of the manufacturing process, distribution and marketing and you can burn up some serious resources selling crap to people?  Really?

Where will the idea of hand CRAFT evolve to?  Is the "how" something is put together dead? Will there be more of a complete shift towards how the object looks? Further down that line is how the object functions, if at all? Like the advertising above demonstrates, function can eclipse "craptasticness". You get the point : Entertaining demonstration, function of product, music, then the aesthetic of the product itself.  You can script anything to this product, how environmentally responsible it is, how efficient it will make you, how healthy you'll eat... Etc... You get the point... Inherent properties of material aren't important, longevity of connections isn't important, exact ingredients in the materials is not important, not even if the ingredients will get along with years months weeks of use is < source, style, looks, the "arc of coolness" you might be designing to.  Maybe THAT product isn't the best example, but hell any product you buy nowadays from a cellphone, to a car fits that description!

Yes, I use computers and 3d modeling software.  In this way :

I sketch ---> build scale model ---> I refine the sketch and scale model ---> I scan both into computer ---> I use software to manipulate and refine forms ---> I use software to calculate load tolerances, find centroids for center of gravity, tipping factors etc... ---> I plot out final templates ---> I cut out materials by hand ---> assembly ---> finishing ---> distribute.

I am averse to this process :

Computer scripted form generation ---> 3d printer scale model for tactile approval ---> refine model again in software ---> email 3d data file out for mass manufacture ---> distribute.

Maybe I'm old school like that, but the computer is a tool that assists me in dominating an object's complexity, making it easier to manage, making curves sexier, and making volume and area crunching much easier to calculate.  The software is a tool, not a place where anything is born, its where things I created get manipulated, refined, massaged.

Aesthetics play a major role in the refinement and acceptance of an object, or what have you... Its this art of perfecting the combination of exterior beauty with balanced proportions, the cloak that tickles an indescribable reason as to why you just like "a look". Lets expand on that. If designers are going to mimic nature, would s/he not use what is well proportioned in nature as good influence? Would the bad in nature serve the purpose of creating something bad? I don't think the "ugly" in nature goes to waste, nature's violence, malevolence, its cruel and clever ways of overcoming the strengths of its prey are major lessons to be learned from.  I'm sure the only government engineer I know might find some inspiration from the Archer Fish.  The arc of engineering at some point multiplied the power of nature's deadly creations to ungodly magnitudes for the purpose of neutralizing opposing force. Look at these two videos one of the Archer fish who is basically a sniper, and the second video of the Javelin at work...

Function, the other side of the coin is much much simpler. The product needs to do what you claim it should do, or that your expectations of that product are met to a reasonable extent.  I am sure many of you can relate to so many gadgets and objects that you have purchased within the past year that just didn't perform as you thought they would.  Out of warranty, the objects were just thrown away. Because they stopped functioning.

dl.v